Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

Sports Corner Rules
Sports Corner Resource

FM Forums | Sports Corner | Join Upload & Sell

2 end

Archive 2023 · AF of 1D X III and A9 II for sports

Allthink
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · AF of 1D X III and A9 II for sports

Hello to all
I have a small debate i'm running into. I must say I'm not married to one brand and use each brand advantages to my benfit, and the lenses on each system are not same but complementary.
So, I'm thinking to add second body and I think what is better in terms of AF.
The AF on 1D X III is not smart like a9, meaning it's manual AF you must toggle the focus point/area etc. in 1D X III.

I do like both bodies and each of them have some strong points(have 16-35 for canon, and 20 and 85 for Sony)

So which body is better to add?, taking into account that I do know how to toggle manually 1D X III af points/boxes as well as know how to work with a9, which is a bit easier, when recomposing(1D X III doesn't have smart mode and if subject gets out of the af point/area the AF goes to bg...).

Thinking to add either of a9 II (to my a9) with new 70-200 or getting same 1D X III and new 70-200.(I do want to sell one of my 2 x D5 bodies)
Thanks for your input

May 12, 2023 at 11:39 AM

osv2
Offline
• • • •
[X]

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · AF of 1D X III and A9 II for sports

since you already have an a9? you aren't going to gain much in terms of sports af with an a9ii because they both use the same sensor.

the a9ii does have a lot of relevant sports updates over the a9, and the newer better body design as well, but the only way forward in terms of body af would be with a faster-scanning sensor, aka sony a1, canon r3, or nikon z8/z9... dslr af would be a step backwards.

that new fe70-200ii is best in class.

May 12, 2023 at 12:25 PM

schlotz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · AF of 1D X III and A9 II for sports

With the A9 II the battery is different vs the A9, the body ergonomics are a tad better for gripping and there is a lock button I believe on the exposure compensation dial which comes in handy if hanging off of a strap where it could accidentally get moved. As mentioned above, no difference in AF. The Sony tracking using just a focal point (face & eye turned off) is very good and does the job when shooting sports where you want the target positioned a certain way within the frame. I use this mode when the target is relatively unobstructed from other soccer players i.e. works good with one-on-one battles for possession but revert back to the standard focal point (no tracking) in most other situations. Having shot soccer for more than 20 years I found the face & eye tracking somewhat problematic due to the nature of this sport. However, it does work great for other sports like tennis, baseball, golf etc...

Correction: the battery is the same for the A9 & A9 II, they both use the FZ100

Edited on May 18, 2023 at 12:55 PM · View previous versions

May 14, 2023 at 07:49 AM

pulper11
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · AF of 1D X III and A9 II for sports

schlotz wrote:
With the A9 II the battery is different vs the A9, the body ergonomics are a tad better for gripping and there is a lock button I believe on the exposure compensation dial which comes in handy if hanging off of a strap where it could accidentally get moved. As mentioned above, no difference in AF. The Sony tracking using just a focal point (face & eye turned off) is very good and does the job when shooting sports where you want the target positioned a certain way within the frame. I use this mode when the target is relatively...Show more →

Shooting football (American) or hockey is also problematic for face and eye tracking. I never use it for that. Center point focus for me. Or if I use tracking on my Canon, I turn off any of the objects it's looking for (people/animals/cars). That way it will keep focus on whatever when it moves.

However, as you indicated, tennis is a sport that works great for it. Just shot my first tournament this past Friday and the face/eye detection was amazing. Here is a post of some of my pictures. Some are with the A9 and the 70-200 version 2 (which as indicated is great). Some are with the Canon R6 and the 400 F4 DO Version 2. The face/eye detection with this sport really makes it much easier to focus on other parts of your shooting.

https://photobybarnick.com/michigan-vs-usc-tennis/

May 15, 2023 at 03:56 PM

Allthink
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · AF of 1D X III and A9 II for sports

Hi
I saw your images of tennis, nice images.
But, i see in some images distorion on the ball, I assume those were shot with R6 in electronic mode, right?
So what do you like better in AF, A9 or R6?
Do you have experience with 1D X III?

May 16, 2023 at 01:13 PM

Allthink
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · AF of 1D X III and A9 II for sports

Did you happen to shoot with 1D X III and see how it's AF compares to A9/ii?

May 16, 2023 at 01:14 PM

Allthink
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · AF of 1D X III and A9 II for sports

Which route of updating a second body camera you suggest to go from my current setup I mentioned above?

May 16, 2023 at 01:14 PM

Allthink
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · AF of 1D X III and A9 II for sports

Yes, i understand and see your point.
But I don't want to go for Z9/R3 route now, Z9 still have issues with AF even with v3 firmware.
So, if I'm choosing only between 1D X III and a9, you think a9 AF is better?
Do you happen to use both?

May 16, 2023 at 02:22 PM

pulper11
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · AF of 1D X III and A9 II for sports

I see two images with distortion in the ball. Both of those were taken with the Sony A9 in electronic shutter mode. The first image on the website has a bit of motion blur in the ball which contributes to the distortion look. Any further distortion, I believe, can be attributed to these athletes hitting a malleable ball up to 100 mph on ground strokes. This is actual distortion of the ball, especially right off of contact, and is to be expected. I do not believe (some one can correct me if I'm wrong) that this is the result of rolling shutter. The other picture with a somewhat distorted ball was Patrick Maloney doing a volley about midway down the page. Again I don't believe that is the fault of the camera but the ball changing form slightly right after contact.

I shoot both Canon and Sony during the same outing. If I was in your position, I would not go with the A9ii. That would not even enter my mind unless it was (used) very similar in price to the A9. Again this is for me with what I shoot. If you require a faster frame rate with mechanical shutter, for example, than the A9ii would be necessary.

The A9 IMO is better with AF than the Canon R6 I have which I believe is using the same AF as the 1DXiii but has additional tracking capability. I might be wrong on this so someone can correct me. The 1DXiii is certainly more durable and built better than any of the others mentioned. But you're talking just AF so that's my take on it. The A9 is better for AF IMO. It's faster in acquiring subjects. I love the tracking with the A9.

I've never used the 1DXiii so I can't comment on it specifically. As mentioned I believe the R6 has the same AF as the 1DXiii but has added tracking capability.

One final thing. When I'm shooting hockey, football, or tennis, I'm pushing the AF on my cameras to the absolute limit. I'm shooting a 400mm lens on the R6 and a 70-200mm with the A9, typically at 200mm, and I'm trying to capture extremely fast action that changes direction quickly that sometimes is approaching minimum focusing distance of the lens. That is much more difficult for AF than wide angle lenses. So if you're planning on mostly shooting wide angle and/or slower subjects, I cannot say for sure if you'd even notice a difference between the cameras. You might have time to switch AF points and then focus. I used to have to do that (assuming everyone here over a certain age did). Not having to do that is great for fast action. Might not be needed for your shots.

Hope this helps and didn't confuse!

May 16, 2023 at 02:24 PM

osv2
Offline
• • • •
[X]

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · AF of 1D X III and A9 II for sports

Allthink wrote:
Yes, i understand and see your point.
But I don't want to go for Z9/R3 route now, Z9 still have issues with AF even with v3 firmware.
So, if I'm choosing only between 1D X III and a9, you think a9 AF is better?

a9 af is much better, the 1dxmkiii is literally dumb dslr af, there are no usable intelligent af modes like eyeaf and face recognition.

much bigger than that, tho, is 20fps on the a9 vs. 10-12fps on the 1dxmkiii, with old slow-focusing dslr lens designs... the framerate difference is significant, you are much closer to capturing the decisive moment with higher framerates.

if you were shooting 20fps on the a9, you would have seen it.

May 17, 2023 at 09:49 AM

Allthink
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · AF of 1D X III and A9 II for sports

osv2 wrote:
a9 af is much better, the 1dxmkiii is literally dumb dslr af, there are no usable intelligent af modes like eyeaf and face recognition.

much bigger than that, tho, is 20fps on the a9 vs. 10-12fps on the 1dxmkiii, with old slow-focusing dslr lens designs... the framerate difference is significant, you are much closer to capturing the decisive moment with higher framerates.

if you were shooting 20fps on the a9, you would have seen it.

Yes, I agree with you that my a9 AF is smarter, and 1D X III doesn't have , sadly, these smart modes of tracking.
Did you compare 1D X III and a9 side by side?
The benefits of 1D is better body and ergonomics, which i do like.
You think that canon's 70-200 IS III (latest) is not as fast AF as the 70-200 gm II? or it's just because of the DSLR's AF and not len's motors ability?

May 18, 2023 at 03:27 AM

Tony Ross
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · AF of 1D X III and A9 II for sports

May 18, 2023 at 04:43 AM

schlotz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · AF of 1D X III and A9 II for sports

Oops, got confused you are correct the batteries are the same, both use the FZ100. I'll re-edit my original post.
BTW: put a grip on the A9II and the ergos are on par with the 1DX III plus you have two FZ100s in it.

May 18, 2023 at 07:10 AM

pulper11
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · AF of 1D X III and A9 II for sports

Allthink wrote:
You think that canon's 70-200 IS III (latest) is not as fast AF as the 70-200 gm II? or it's just because of the DSLR's AF and not len's motors ability?

Just wondering why you're asking this. The camera and lens work together to focus. If you're comparing two camera and lens pairings, then I'm not sure the "why" one focuses slower is relevant. Are you asking in case you later want to go to the R6/R5/R3 and am wondering if the lens or the camera is the limiting element? Otherwise, if the A9 and 70-200mm version 2 focuses faster than the 1DXiii and the 70-200mm version 3, then it just does. If you're thinking about this b/c of a future upgrade, then you'd also want to do an apples to apples comparison between the sony and RF version of the Canon 70-200. The mirrorless Sony and Canon versions are the more direct comparison both in quality as well as price.

May 18, 2023 at 01:32 PM

osv2
Offline
• • • •
[X]

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · AF of 1D X III and A9 II for sports

Allthink wrote:
Yes, I agree with you that my a9 AF is smarter, and 1D X III doesn't have , sadly, these smart modes of tracking.
Did you compare 1D X III and a9 side by side?
The benefits of 1D is better body and ergonomics, which i do like.
You think that canon's 70-200 IS III (latest) is not as fast AF as the 70-200 gm II? or it's just because of the DSLR's AF and not len's motors ability?

that canon lens was released back in 2018, it uses a ring ultrasonic af motor, which is old by even the rather primitive canon current standard of linear ultrasonic... on the other hand it should be cheaper, especially if you get a used version.

i've never used canon still cameras, but i spent tens of thousands of $$$ on canon prosumer video gear over the years, i'm done with the brand... i like sony milc because it gives you superior af and the high framerates that make it much more likely that you'll get keepers of the best possible decisive moments.

May 18, 2023 at 01:40 PM

mcoons
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · AF of 1D X III and A9 II for sports

I wanted to clarify something about the 1Dx Mark III, it does have face/head tracking through the viewfinder albeit in the smaller area versus a mirrorless camera. It works well, better than the 1Dx II subject tracking, but not as well as a full mirrorless body like the R3 because of how small the focus area is.

May 19, 2023 at 10:06 AM

carl_g
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · AF of 1D X III and A9 II for sports

Stick with Canon and get an R3.

May 19, 2023 at 12:00 PM

Allthink
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · AF of 1D X III and A9 II for sports

Yes, I know that 1D X III have face/body tracking, but thought that it's only in live view mode.
So it's also present in a square box(3 small boxes-left middle right) mode too?

May 22, 2023 at 03:24 PM

Allthink
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · AF of 1D X III and A9 II for sports

If I go that route, then what about the other colleagues saying here that the 70-200 is III is not as fast as sony's 70-200 GM II because it has an older focusing motors? Because I neither have 70-200 for canon nor for sony, yet.
R3 seems like a good camera, wondering how it works with 300mm 2.8 IS mk1 with adapter?

May 22, 2023 at 03:26 PM

ronlane
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · AF of 1D X III and A9 II for sports

I've never heard anyone complain about the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 being slow focusing (any version). The II was better than the I and the III is better than both from what I have heard.

The R3 will work with the 300mm version I with the adapter but you won't get the full FPS out of the R3 with it.

If I didn't have either 70-200mm and got the R3, I'd get the RF 70-200mm f/2.8. They are built to work together great and you don't need the adapter.

May 22, 2023 at 04:45 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Sports Corner \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.